Upload
matthew-simon
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Service Management Status99th ACCU Meeting
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Change ManagementEvent ManagementKnowledge ManagementService Level ManagementProblem ManagementConfiguration ManagementRisk Management…….24 processes
Service Desk in Perspective
Service Desk
Ser
vice
M
anag
emen
t
Service Portal
HeatingE-mail
Cleaning Payroll
Access
Guards Shuttle
RefurbishmentSanitary
Hotel
Training
USERS 14000 Distinct users have used the system in the last year
6 Supporters in the service desk 7:30 - 18:30
930 Supporters in CERN
431 Active support functions272 Active services provided
Incident ManagementRequest Management
What is Service Management
An approach to ‘adopt and adapt’ to ensure services are optimally aligned with specific and changing requirements of the organization
A Framework of Established good practice, successfully used by thousands of organisations worldwide
Customer/user focussed
A strategic approach, covering all services (not only IT)
A set of processes covering the complete service lifecycle
It is not only a “service desk” (service desk is just one of the most visible manifestations).
What are we trying to achieve
Our Goals:
1. One Service Desk; one number to ring (77777/78888); one place to go
2. Standard Processes for all services (one behavior)
3. Services easy to find by everybody, without knowledge of CERN internal structures and defined from a user’s perspective
4. Very high level of automation (one tool)
Why are we doing thisMany reasons, but main reason is drive to make optimal use of scarce resources.
1983: 2000 Users and Staff ‘down’ to 3452
2013: 24269 Active People ‘at CERN’ of which 10000 USER’s and ~2300 Staff
19832013
Service Management 2 years of operation 95000 Incidents
125000 Requests
1500 Knowledge Articles
395 special forms developed
272 Services
431 Operational Functions (with support groups)
>930 Supporters hooked up
>900 Concurrent sessions
Portal popularity grows (from 9% in 2011 to 23%)
220,771Note: Incidents converted in request count only once as a request, excl ca 9000 ‘spam’
GS Service Management Trends
7
(No double counting)
Customer/User Satisfaction Survey
8
After 2 years:
Simple and short addressing 3 main topics• General satisfaction• Trend (do people feel things are moving in the right direction)• Suggestions for improvement
Selection of 320 users contacted based on• Use of the system (>30 tickets)• Representation
• Departments• Experiments (e.g. all experiment secretariats represented)
No ‘guests’ where contacted (although they represent 25% of all tickets)
Customer/User Satisfaction Survey
Customer/User Survey Results
10
Total 142 Answers received. 0 1 2 3 4 5
Administration related tickets (recruitment, invoice office, residence permits, etc..)? 85 3 2 15 29 8 142
Infrastructure related tickets (cleaning, refurbishment, sanitary, electricity, heating, transport, etc…)? 18 5 15 39 54 11 142
Computing related tickets (desktop, network, afs, application software, etc...)? 8 1 7 27 69 30 142
There is improvement in the interaction with the system? 22 4 8 46 48 14 142
There is improvement in the way issues are treated? 15 3 9 39 58 18 142
Creation of ticket via Email 13 4 1 21 63 40 142
Creation of ticket via Phone (Service Desk) 43 5 5 12 46 31 142
Creation of ticket via the Service Portal (Forms) 29 5 12 25 47 24 142
Feedback from system via Email Notifications 11 13 22 28 48 20 142
Feedback from system via Service Portal 32 8 19 26 42 15 142
Extend the scope; more services (eg. HR, FP, EN, DG, and PH provided services) 37 22 13 29 26 15 142
Improve the service quality (timely resolution of incidents and requests) 21 9 13 30 43 26 142
The service desk (opening hours) 28 34 24 27 15 14 142
The service portal (look and feel, search) 30 8 19 39 25 21 142
Tool features (interaction, complexity, comprehensive notifications) 17 5 12 30 45 33 142
General Satisfaction (By domain). Please rate the services based on your experience (0 - Don't know, 1 - Very Bad, 2 - Bad, 3 - Acceptable, 4 - Good, 5 - Excellent) ?
Please indicate if you feel a positive of negative evolution over the last year (0 - Don't know, 1 - Lot Worse, 2 - Bit Worse, 3 - Stable, 4 - Small Improvement, 5 - Big Improvement) ?
Satisfaction of interaction with the system. Please rate based on your experience (0 - Don't know, 1 - Very Bad, 2 - Bad, 3 - Acceptable, 4 - Good, 5 - Excellent) ?
Suggestions for improvement (0 - Don't know, 1 - No Priority, 2 - Low Priority, 3 - Average Priority, 4 - High Priority, 5 - Essential) ?
• Some extreme’s• All negative with general comment: “over all... VERY BAD !” (without any
suggestions for improvement, systematically ‘1’). (IT guy with grunge)
• All positive (5) with comment: “all was perfect”
• Overall serious answers:
Customer/User Survey Results
11
1. General satisfaction good (with infrastructure support scoring lower than IT).
2. The trend is positive (positive evolution)
3. Interaction with system overall ok, with some concerns around email notifications.
4. Improvements1. High Priority for Service Quality and tool features
2. Opening hours, scope and service portal upgrade seem less important.Total 142 Answers received. 0 1 2 3 4 5
Administration related tickets (recruitment, invoice office, residence permits, etc..)? 85 3 2 15 29 8 142
Infrastructure related tickets (cleaning, refurbishment, sanitary, electricity, heating, transport, etc…)? 18 5 15 39 54 11 142
Computing related tickets (desktop, network, afs, application software, etc...)? 8 1 7 27 69 30 142
There is improvement in the interaction with the system? 22 4 8 46 48 14 142
There is improvement in the way issues are treated? 15 3 9 39 58 18 142
Creation of ticket via Email 13 4 1 21 63 40 142
Creation of ticket via Phone (Service Desk) 43 5 5 12 46 31 142
Creation of ticket via the Service Portal (Forms) 29 5 12 25 47 24 142
Feedback from system via Email Notifications 11 13 22 28 48 20 142
Feedback from system via Service Portal 32 8 19 26 42 15 142
Extend the scope; more services (eg. HR, FP, EN, DG, and PH provided services) 37 22 13 29 26 15 142
Improve the service quality (timely resolution of incidents and requests) 21 9 13 30 43 26 142
The service desk (opening hours) 28 34 24 27 15 14 142
The service portal (look and feel, search) 30 8 19 39 25 21 142
Tool features (interaction, complexity, comprehensive notifications) 17 5 12 30 45 33 142
General Satisfaction (By domain). Please rate the services based on your experience (0 - Don't know, 1 - Very Bad, 2 - Bad, 3 - Acceptable, 4 - Good, 5 - Excellent) ?
Please indicate if you feel a positive of negative evolution over the last year (0 - Don't know, 1 - Lot Worse, 2 - Bit Worse, 3 - Stable, 4 - Small Improvement, 5 - Big Improvement) ?
Satisfaction of interaction with the system. Please rate based on your experience (0 - Don't know, 1 - Very Bad, 2 - Bad, 3 - Acceptable, 4 - Good, 5 - Excellent) ?
Suggestions for improvement (0 - Don't know, 1 - No Priority, 2 - Low Priority, 3 - Average Priority, 4 - High Priority, 5 - Essential) ?
Customer/User Survey Results
12
• Lots of interesting verbose feedback• Many points we’ll be able to address shortly
• Clone feature• Notifications less and simplified• Closing unsolved tickets• Hide Incident Request• User interface simplified• Improved communication
• Others not easy• French version• Senior staff in service desk
Comments and feedback
13
• Survey: We’ll post a list of answers to all the verbose suggestions.• Long outstanding tickets (causes and symptoms):
1. No timely feedback is given we’ll continue to work on GS-SE to coach them to provide better feedback.
2. Request ends up in “dialogue de sourds”: we propose to introduce a formal complaints process on top of the feedback process.1. Feedback on a ticket goes to service provider
2. Complaint get escalated and is between the ‘customer’ or representative of the user and the supervisor of the service provider (can be reviewed in ACCU in future)
Green vignetteGreen vignette
Firefox saga closed
Toilet problem
Ventilation problem
Linux problemLinux problemOld Linux problem
Other Findings• The agreed processes are not always applied
• Unreliable statistics on service quality• Priorities not well managed• Service quality suboptimal
• A single tool for 930 supporters can’t please all
Plan short term• Now: campaign to improve usage of the system by
support teams and managers.• Soon (before the summer):
• A CERN service status board• Work on improving relationships
• User Feedback, User Surveys, Complaints Process, Service Level Management
• A simplified user interface for supporters• Additional services added to the scope (FP, HR, etc…)• …
Plan longer term• Service management is a framework.• We will continuously develop relevant branches.
Many thanks for your attention!